You seem to be conveniently leaving out the part where you called Barrington unathletic based solely on his 40 time. Going by your logic, Hawk was more athletic than Matthews.
No one is arguing that 4.91 is a bad time. Everyone just has an issue with how ignorant it is for you to base a player's athleticism on nothing but a 40 time.
Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan
Speed IS a MAJOR factor in an NFL player's athleticism. The stopwatch makes guys MILLIONS and loses them, also. Look at Chris Borland. No doubt in the world he's a top 10 1st rounder IF he's faster...he wasn't.
For you to be so sarcastically dismissive of the role of the 40 is curious. It does determine so much. Men who are paid millions use those times as a guide on who to draft and where. That is what is bizarre... to dismiss the role of speed in the NFL.
A guy who can jump high and long and lift 225 a bunch of reps ain't making much money if he's slow unless he's a lineman and even there speed is an asset and factors into drafting.
If Sam Barrington can't cover due to not being fast enough what is going to be said of him? It will be said he is not ATHLETIC enough to hang with TE's and RB's. Of course, almost every LB is not going to be able to hang with a RB.
You brought up Hawk...why was he a 5th overall pick? His 40 time. Why was Aaron Curry a Top 5 pick? 40 time. BTW, imagine Seattle's D if he'd actually been anywhere near his hype.
40 matters and matters a lot and does determine how athletic a player is viewed.
BTW: I lamented Sam having the same limits as Bishop's poor athleticism. Why did I say that about Bishop? Bishop timed very poorly at the combine, too. I just want him to be faster. Wow...so wrong. Again, I have never watched Sam and thought...man, he looks fast. I have thought he looked faster than 4.91 and that's a good thing.
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."